HW 3 - Banach's Lecture pt. 2

"Essence preceeds Existence"... This was one of Banachs main idea in the second part of his lecture. What Banach was trying to say was that for something to exist, essence must first persuede the creator who has made what is existing. Or if something has already existed but is flawed and the creator then comes up with an idea of essence that helps improve or help to become more convenient. The author used a pair of scissors as an example. He was suggesting, i say suggesting because we dont necessarily know this is true, that the creator of scissors, like all other great men of inventions, had saw the lack of greatness in a quality product and decided to tweak or improve with thoughts of their own. I suppose that connecting this to Banach's first part of his lecture would mean that the creator he is generally speaking of must first see dissapointment in that existing object in they're eyes but maybe not in the eyes of other people. This reminds me of once again us being refered to as "absolute individuals". We are all different and see things differently. Some may even choose to see things over others by choice when focused on, such as a pair of flawed paper cutters that can be tweaked and evolved into the modern infamous pair of scissors.

I like Mateo's question “Does the outside world affect your freedom?” This question ties into Banach's lecture tremendously as everyone is supposedly captivated by there own strength and mind. In the longrun, for anyone, there are no limits. Everyone is allowed to do so. Although to this day society chooses to mold and perfect a set of unflawed rules and laws that we as humans are forced to abide by. Its anyone's choice to break those laws, its whether we get "caught" for them and are forcefully punished for those actions. As Americans we are told that we are free and have that privilege when compared to other places. But to live in a world full of rules that we must practice each and every day, does that make us completely free? In the end all i could do was answer Mateo's question with another question. My answer began to lead to a political opinion being expressed, which is a road i dont wanna go down. SO i end this post here before i ramble on.

HW 2 - Comments 1

(Comments to Ariels page)
Great stuff. You made some interesting connections between Banachs words and your own. You depicted some great imagery with your own words, allowingme to both visualize and see a connection of my own to your text. Im beginning to think that you were able to feel some sort of "absolute freedom" within yourself when you arrived here in NY as opposed to your old life back home in LA. It seems as though you lead the life of the ordinary outcast from another state like seen in all those movies haha. Unless thats just how i choose to see your life because of what i am exposed to due to television and such (whole different topic). i think to further expand your post or some ideas for your next one you can explore your opinions on why Banach COULD be right, or if you did agree with him, why. You did mention however the significance behind his words if he were to be correct. I wonder if i myself have friends that i choose to let in or ones that are able to read and understand me or are thinking exactly what i am thinking. i have an idea of who those friends are in my life, so i believe some do share similar thoughts and everyone is not 100 percent "absolute individuals". Your words about those who either connect with you or pretend to also reminded me of todays lecture about who's real and who's fake. Good stuff.

...CHris OVer and OUtt

(Comments to Leticia's page)
Great stuff. i like the way you started off by quoting Banach and how you interpreted his words into your own. Although i must admit grammer became a very small issue in your post, but in the end was still an issue. I understand where you stand on Banach's words, but im still not so clear as to what Banach was truly saying, not in your own words, but if someone else were to interpret his words how would they go about? I noticed a connection between the class's discussion as a whole, to your words where you mentioned in your post how u both agree and disagree with Banach's words. I guess if you were interested in expanding your post, or an idea for future posts, you could write about both sides you agree/disagree over with Banach, and maybe you could find a connection between the two and his words. Good stuff

HW 1 - Banach's Lecture part 1

David Banarch's "The ethics of Absolute Freedom" 's part one lecture is based on Individuality and freedom. Going over the first lecture in class, there were some words that needed to be read over and discussed within my group. Beforehand we came up with some text-reading strategies. One strategy that i practiced was "dumbing down" the words in which i can understand easily. Right from the start, the text sarts the reader off with a grasping hook with the statement "The modern conception of man is characterized, more than anything else; by individualism." Of course the term individualism will be magnifined even further in this transcript. Although no actual definition is provided my take on individualism is that it describes all persons as individuals and what separates them. The transcript is broken down into sections that help the reader to get an idea of what existentialism is, seeing how there isnt just one simple answer.

I thought that individuals being refered to as "absolute" was interesting because to be called absolute individuals meant to me that we are all 100 percent different. the main argument so far in the lecture was that we percieve things differently, such as images and experiences. Images like the ones that you see one or the other in it, and in order to catch the other image you have to focus hard. When humans look at these photos in an unfocused glance, they only see the first thing that comes to mind, and whether you see two people kissing or a candlestick in one photo, it says alot about that person and theyre state of mind, so it says.